Yall give me some idea's on a ground plane and coax.My equipment:RCI-2980,20-25w/ssb,Turner+3 desk mic,40ft push-up pole.I looking for a set up with low low TVI,up to about a 100watts,Good for skip as well as local.ALL OPINIONS WANTED!!! Thanks in advance.

I'm sure in a couple days, this list will be pages and pages long; before it gets there, spend the money on a good TVI filter. Even tho they are sold out, the Copper filter is a good price. In fact, I'm sure the reason they are sold out is because it's a good price.

My faithful Antron 99 of 13 years has finally went to the great "vertical beyond". I bought an IMAX 2000 tonite, hope to have it by the weekend. I'll let ya know, but from reports I've read, the Maco (as suggested above) or an IMAX 2000 are the most trouble free with good performance. Not sure on the Shakespeare status...maybe someone can input on that. See "Subscriber (Preview)" for some good reviews and advice. Good luck---

For a "ground Plane" antenna, I second Galileo's suggestion. Yes, the Maco 5/8 is a very good choice.

For a antenna not requiring a ground plane, you can't go wrong with the Solarcon 24 foot I-Max 2000. Especially if you can get the base of it 40 feet in the air. The I-Max is also a 5/8 wave and is the ONLY antenna that will work almost every frequency your radio has since this antenna has a Bandpass of near 3Mhz.

The MACO Alpha V 5/8 is coil loaded and prone to short out if hit by lightning. But that's very rare.

The MACO V 5000 is not coil loaded.

The Ground Plane Kit for the I-Max will help reduce TVI if you have any. It also has been known to enhance the receive in some applications. The GPK does nothing for transmit. However, if the base of the I-Max 2000 is above 30 feet, it's not needed. Mounted less than 30 feet, yes, you're going to need all the help you can get. That holds true for just about any base antenna.

If you would like to read about these antennas, click on Subscriber (Preview) and then click on "Product Reviews". There are some really good articles that were written about these antennas. Including the I-Max's GPK.

All 3 of these antennas are considered to be the best 5/8 wave CB antennas on todays market. Just remember, the more metal you have in the air, and the higher you put it in the air, the farther it will transmit and the better it will receive.

Spent an hour or so pulling down the old Antron, put up the IMAX (dang is that thing TALL!) and so far, wonderful. Factory preset tune worked for me. Very strong and consistent skip from our Mexican friends, certainly stronger than I had gotten in a long time...but really want to try it out tonite locally once things settle down. I just dont want to look at it when the wind is blowing...always hated that about the Antron. Looked like it was gonna go any second. BTW, no ground plane yet. Gonna try without. --73

mikefromms

Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 6:05 pm:

I have read many reviews and heard lots of antennas and want to offer my suggestion to you on an antenna. Go ahead and get the Imax 2000. It is simple, works great from the reports, and is broadbanded. All of these people can't be wrong. If I were in the market for a base station omni-directional antenna it would be the Imax 2000.

mikefromms

mikefromms

Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 6:07 pm:

Oh, as for coax for a 50 to a 100 foot run I think the 213 big coax will fit the bill fine.

Hi Jeff, Yeah I figure what's the worst that can happen really? It breaks and falls in the wind. Wouldn't want to see that, but as long as nobody gets hurt that's all that matters. As far as height, It's up about 55' at the tip. Did some local testing last night and had an increase of about 2 to 3 s-units overall on everybody, so that was very nice! The problem was "how to" get that thing mounted and not fall off the roof! I made a roof mount (temporary) and snince the overall sections were longer than the 99, I had to do some very creative balancing which I probably would never do again! I'll take a picture and send it along in another message and kindly ask our Forummaster to post. SO it works wonderfully so far and I think the GPK for me is a non-issue as you suggest. Besides, the way I have it mounted I couldn't get one on anyway. Which band do you hang out on Jeff? We need to get a Copper Ham QSO going on 20 or 40 someday.---73

RCI 2990

Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 3:24 pm:

Any of you guys have an old Hy Gain P 500 around? I found one that a kid had for sale and got it for only 15.00. Fixed it up and now i have a few guys that will give me over 100.00 for the thing!!! LOL!!!! But i wont sell it because around here almost no one has them anymore and the ones that are up are busted up and worthless....

I have 2 complete penetrator 500's. I won't part with either of them. I have 2 more for parts with enough between the two to build a fully functional third antenna. I don't have either in operation now because I don't want to run guy-wires on my house. When I get my tower up, I'll be putting 1 up and sticking the old A-99 in the retirement corner.

Hello Stepchild. These are ALL good ideas they are telling you!! So I guess I'll throw in my personal faverite. I have been into CB for 30 years and i've been through a LOT of GPs. The 1 I havn't heard anyone talk about was the Shakespear NBS2010 Super Big Stick. Thats what I run here. Mine is only 48' to the top, and NO TVI at all. ( And that is with a little 100 watter ) It's a 5/8 wave, 21feet tall, 26-28.5 band width. Very strongly built. Great recieve and transmit. Best 1 I have used!! GOOD LUCK!! I also use a coax called "Bury Flex ) 100% shielded. If you want to check it out try www.BuryFlex.com I think this is there URL

Georgec

Honeydo

Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 6:30 am:

Stepchild or anyone, Been looking for a 40'pushup pole, however, not much success. Any ideas would be appreciated. Thanks and happy DXing to all. Have had my I-MAX up for 2-years w/ tip of antenna at 50'w/no complaints. Tried the GP-kit and could'nt tell any difference. And yes, a good wind will give the looks of a fishing pole with a huge fish on it.

Honeydo, the Radio Shack store where I live sells push-ups. Wish you were close, I have to good used 50' pushups, they would be cheap. Not much demand for CB stuff around here for the few years. scrapiron

My wife and I went right through Texas last Summer coming back to California from our 6000 mile trip through the lower States. It was the ONLY rain we got on the whole 3 week trip. Probably be awhile before I get back to texas....

Heading North next year. No trips this year. Spent all of our $$$ on remodeling....

But seriously, I think I spent $65 or so for the mast. It worked great for a cheap, quick mast up to 36 ft. There was a limit on the antenna wind load as I remember. Small antenna's or an Antron99 or Imax2000 would be the limit.

The astroplane is far from being the best ground plane antenna. Good antenna for the ease of putting up when space is limited and dxing is primarily used. Can't beat the price either. The imax is tough to beat and requires minimum knowledge to assemble and supperior performance!

Honeydo, there is a place in Columbus, GA that I bought two pushups from and one is forty feet and one is fifty feet total. They are much HEAVIER than the stuff from Rad shak. If you are interested, I will be down that way on Friday this week. Send me an email if you want me to check to see if they still sell those. Thanks.

"The astroplane is far from being the best ground plane antenna". Interesting since i used a 1/2 wave i built mounted in the same spot and talked to a station in st. pete ( 10 miles ) from here. Result on his meter there was NO change from a 18 foot tall antenna with 4, 9 foot radiles to the astroplane ( clone ). Hummm a good controled field test is in order here........ and may the best antenna win.

I was refering to the astroplane clone (top one). Sorry for the confusion.

Code: S80-00010 S80-00010 Top One Ground Plane Antenna $ 49.99

Top One Ground Plane Antenna

Similar to the old Astro Plane antenna

10 Meter 26-30Mhz

2000 watt max power

Easy Assembly

Height : 11.5'

Top Radiation - This design results in increased range, fewer dead spots. This is especially important where installed height is limited. Radiates approximately 15' higher than most antennas which radiate at the bottom.

Lower Angle of Radiation - Your signal hugs the curvature of the earth instead of shooting your power up into the sky, which means greater distance than an ordinary omni-directional antenna.

73's stickshift

RCI 2990

Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 1:09 am:

Stickshift and Alagator... Yes indeed the P 500 is hard to beat but it is bulky and kinda of an eyesore but man can it talk!!!! I still have mine that i bought off that 18 year old kid and its in safe keeping up in the folkes garage along with my Avanti sigma 5/8, my Astroplane, spare moonraker 4s, and my NIB astrobeam!!

Here My tests over a 10 mile path show the TOP-ONE did quite well. Even on paper a 5/8 wave would only be 1/4 " S " unit better and TWICE the size. Now if you want a REALY losey groundplane midland and others sell a 4 foot tall end fed antenna for roof mounting it was several " S " units weaker .... like 12 db if you beleve in s units. Antennas are like lots of other things you pick and chose some you like some you dont but if they are made right most work as they should. Let the field test roll lets see some measured data .... untill then TOP-ONE does exactly what its supose to do.

RCI 2990

Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 1:46 pm:

Those astroplanes work very well Bruce.. I know of several old timers here were I live that swear by them. One guy in particular i remember had one up about 60' on a tower once and he talked all over the place.. i Could hear him well over 30 miles away in the mobile giving me a 5 S unit when i could barely hear anyone else. He always ran a Cobra base ( cant remember wheich one) and no power....

...maco v - 5/8 for me, take up a lot of room with those 4 horizontal elements at the bottom, but a dern good antenna !! I would recommend one to any one...second choice would be an ANTRON 99, but it is fibreglass instead of metal... so in a way they aint even in the same catergory except to be all-directional vertical base antennas. Just my 2 cents ( dern dropped a nickel by mistake ... lol )

Yes indeed Bruce, there is no doubt the Top One is a fine antenna. I won't argue with you on that fact. It performs as intended. It has big performance in a small package. The point that I was trying to make is that there are other antennas that will do a better job. As for the penterators, I acquired all of my penetrator antennas for the price of normal tap water. I guess that makes them the best antennas in my book. Never say "no" to perfectly good radio equipment when it comes to you for free. Even old non-working radios have there uses, eg: old non-functioning radios make good door stops and conversation pieces!

No one doubts the fact that MOST of the antennas listed here work well and as a rule a 5/8 wave is about 1 db better than a 1/2 wave. But i have run several cb antennas here including the skylab and the 1/2 wave HB and realy found if you install them right not much change between them. The problem is everyone has been pumped up by adds claiming 9.9db 12db 1000 db gain when the laws of antennas is a fixed amount. The STANDARD for groundplanes above cb IS 5/8 wave since there is no sence in running a short antenna when at 2 meters a 5/8 wave is only 47 inches. On 6 meters my fm base antenna for more than 30 years was a Mosley DI-6 5/8 wave and on 6 i worked all over the US running about 15 watts I still have it but its state is so poor it is beyond repair. How did it work .... very well but so did a ringo 1/2 wave again if its running right not much diffrence between them. The astroplane is in the 1/2 wave class size wise and as a rule size determins gain using that logic it would measure 1 - 2 DBI gain while a 5/8 wave will run around 3 DBI ....remember there are 6DB in one " S " unit. As for non working radios ....if they are worth it it will not stay not working long around here.

Tech 833 went to a lot of time to write this great article and it should answer all of your questions for you.

Lon Tech808

fancypants

Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 1:17 am:

Kc0gxz: Since when did the Maco V58 become coil loaded ? This antenna is a simple shunt fed 5/8 wave with NO loading coil. By varying the physical length of the radiator and adjusting the coupling to ground via the tuning loop, one can achieve quite a variance in terms of feedpoint impedances / vswr WITHOUT a loading coil.

The weak point in terms of power handling with this antenna is the scrawny wire used to connect the SO-239 to the tuning loop and the clamp used to electrically connect that wire to the tuning loop. While not necessarily related to power handling ( it is, but only under certain conditions ), one may want to seal / weather-proof all of the connections pertaining to the tuning loop. Due to water settling on the tuning loop, it's possible for the feedpoint impedance of the antenna to be altered during heavy rains, etc... I'm sure that most all of you using similar designed antennas i.e. "metal ground planes" have watched your swr vary as weather / humidity levels change.

As far as the ground plane kits for the A-99 and Imax go, avoid them. They will tend to increase TVI for several reasons. First of all, the radials that they use are non-resonant. In order for a "ground plane" to work at maximum efficiency, it should make use of a "tuned counterpoise". In order to do that, you would need to use radials that were self resonant i.e. appr 1/4 wavelength long. If you want to buy the GP kit and then change the radials to 1/4 radials OR electrically shortened whips that have been tuned for proper resonance at the frequency of operation, THAT will make a difference in performance for the positive. As it is, the length of the radials that come with the factory GP kit make GREAT quarter wave resonant radiators for the second harmonic, which falls very near part of the broadcast TV band.

On top of this, the angle of radiation is altered on the antenna when you use a GP kit. While this can be a good thing, much of how well this works will be dependent on the mounting height of the antenna, the terrain around the antenna and how lossy the ground is in that area. The higher that you get the antenna mounted and the more conductive the soil in your area, the less difference the the GP radials will make.

Having said that, you can alter the radiation angle by playing with the amount of "droop" that the radials display when mounted. The more that they "droop", the lower your feedpoint impedance will be ( increased power transfer for solid state output devices ) and the lower your angle of radiation. Too low of an angle will reduce DX potential and blast your neighbors with ground level signal that is sure to decimate their land-lines and broadcast tv antennas.

Other than that, make sure that you take steps to minimize feedline radiation on all base antennas. Antennas such as the A99 and Imax are VERY prone to this type of problem and that's why the instructions make mention of winding a coaxial choke in the coax near the antenna. By introducing an impedance bump on the coax itself by winding a choke in it, this keeps the signal from flowing back down the shield of the cable and radiating at Earth level. Obviously, keeping the signal up higher at antenna level will reduce interference at ground level in terms of TVI & land-lines.

Other than that, height is might and surface area can't be beat. Look for an antenna that has a large surface area as it will capture more signal and radiate high levels of energy more efficiently. Loading coils of ANY type should be avoided in a typical base antenna design, so pay attention to what you are buying. Most of these "plastic" base antennas ARE coil loaded and make use of "tiny" radiating elements. That's why manufacturers make them i.e. high profit margins and simple to install and maintain for the customers.

Bare in mind that if you mount the antenna relatively low to the ground, some heights will be better than others. Once again, this has to do with the conductivity of soil in your area. If you can findo out what the "water table" for your area is ( the point where the soil below the surface becomes moist and increases in conduction ), use that as your baseline for your mounting height. In other words, "true" ground is not necessarily on the surface of the ground. True ground may be 4' below the surface. As such, knowing where the ground begins to conduct and calculating your TRUE antenna height ( as measured to base of the antenna ) above CONDUCTING ground can make a world of a difference. As a general rule, going up or down a quarter of a wavelength at a time seems to work best.

My personal experiences are that an antenna mounted 3/4 of a wavelength above CONDUCTING ground can work like ganbusters. That is, so long as it is relatively out in the open without a lot of obstructions in its' signal path. As mentioned though, height IS might, but it might not be as much as you think IF you can get things dialed in optimally working with your TRUE point of ground. As such, going up another quarter wavelength might seem to be a better idea, but overall performance could actually be worse. If you doubt this, try reading the ARRL antenna handbook. Obviously, some things aren't always as they appear : )

One other thing. That is, fiberglass or plastic based antennas have a MUCH higher potential for getting hit by lightning than do metal antennas. For one thing, the plastic / fiberglass builds up a static charge just by the wind blowing across it. Since there is already high levels of voltage potential at the tip of a static-charged antenna, lightning goes there rather than take the longer, higher resistance path to ground. Many metal antennas, such as those using a tuning loop ( Maco V58, etc... ) or gamma bar ( Joe Gunn, etc... ) already have the "hot" element at ground potential. This lowers static build-up SO LONG AS the antenna is properly grounded. While some will say that grounding the antenna moves "ground potential" up from the ground and places it up in the sky, my experiences say that a heavily grounded metal antenna is most likely to sustain the least damage to the system / house if it takes a direct hit. If lightning happens to hit an ungrounded antenna, it takes the path of least resistance it can closest to ground and then "scatters" to wherever it can go from there. As such, you are better off by giving the voltage the shortest, most direct low resistance path to ground rather than allowing it to pick and choose what it destroys while it figures out where to go.

As far as antenna bandwidth goes, try measuring an antenna at the base and look at the impedance and levels of reactance that way. Using any length of cable other than odd multiples of a tuned half-wavelength will cause the cable to introduce errant readings into the system and act as an impedance transformer. From what i can recall after messing with dozens of various antenna designs, about the most broadband antenna on the market is the original Starduster. This is because it is naturally resonant, has no loading coils to introduce stray inductance, does not use a gamma to introduce stray capacitance and its nominal impedance is a resistive 45 - 50 ohms. Due to its' low angle of radiation, this antenna can BLAST tv's and telephones to kingdom come. Getting a Starduster WAY up high can be a beautiful thing though : )

PS... I'm not saying that the Starduster is the way to go, only that it has certain advantages in certain installations. If i was mounting an antenna relatively close to the ground, i would be looking at a metal 5/8 wave ground plane with full sized quarter wave radials. For sake of clarity, "low to the ground" is 36' - 40' or so up to the base of the antenna. Remember, quoting tip height is "cheating".

fancypants

Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 1:26 am:

Kc0gxz said: "The Ground Plane Kit for the I-Max will help reduce TVI if you have any. It also has been known to enhance the receive in some applications. The GPK does nothing for transmit."

This statement is against the laws of physics. Since capture angle ( RX ) and radiation angle ( TX ) are directly related, one can't really alter RX characteristics without carrying over those design attributes to the TX portion of operation. There is an old saying that says "the antenna that receives better, transmits better". This is due to what is called the "law of reciprocity" in antenna design.

Once again, i would recommend that those that are TRULY interested in learning about antennas do a lot of reading ( ARRL antenna handbook, ANY of Bill Orr's antenna books ) AND do a lot of hands on experimenting. Antenna systems are responsible for at least 60% of the performance of a system. A great radio connected to a coat-hanger won't go anywhere. A mediocre radio connected to a great antenna will work pretty darn good.

stickshift

Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 2:19 pm:

As far as increasing TVI with a groundplane on an imax goes, i've seen first hand the installation of a groundplane on an imax actually reduced TVI as Kc0gxz previously stated. Just my thoughts from a real-world application.

So the real question is "when is the top ONE going to become the top THREE ala astrobeam,hmmm?"BEST D*** BEAM EVER MADE,HANDS DOWN!!

fancypants

Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 1:48 am:

Stickshift: That is possible as ANY counterpoise is better than none in most cases. As stated above, these "plastic sticks" have a major problem with feedline radiation. Anything that you can do to reduce this is going to help. Solarcon is well aware of this and even includes information as to how to make and install a choke using the coax in order to help reduce this problem.

As a general rule, lowering the radiation angle of an antenna ( which "drooping" radials do ) "blasts" more signal at roof levels. If the antenna is not up high enough, you've just concentrated more signal into your telephone lines ( which will act as a long wire antenna ), your roof mounted TV antennas, your rabbit ear antennas on top of the TV's and at the TV's and phones themselves. Not only is it more likely to come through the sets via radiated harmonics now, you've increased your chances for "front end overload" of the TV / telephones themselves due to increased field strength at lower altitudes.

Bigbob: The Astro-Beam is a great three element with a very tight back-door. It does not have the gain that some other antennas have but it works wonders if trying to null someone coming at you from one specific direction.

As far as the Astro-Plane / Top One goes, i've never been a big fan of them.

Now if you want to talk about "old school" GP's, i'll take a Turner "Sky Kicker" over an Astro-Plane any day of the week. It might not be able to handle as much power as the Astro Plane could, but it will easily out-perform it in most every respect. This was a highly under-rated antenna that just never caught on. How many of you "old coots" remember those things ? : )

Hey Fancypants, I may abe getting old if you call 52 old, but I haven't reached old coot yet. I hope not anyway. However, I do remember the Turner antennas. They spent a TON of money on advertising in the CB magazines on their antennas. I never bought one though. I still have a couple of magazines from back in mid 70's and those ads are in them.

Thank you all for your suggestions,I've decided on the Imax.The base will be right at 40ft so highth won't be a problem.I've got an anniversary comming up the 25th so I think I can hold out till after that.(NO,SHE WILL NOT BUY IT FOR ME lol)I'm going to test the neighbors with this and if all goes well,maybe I can sneak my MR-4 in on them!!! Thanks again for all the opinions,73's Stepchild

mikefromms

Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 11:44 am:

Turner made a 4 element copy of the 3 element superscanner back in the late 70's--so I've heard. Has anyone here ever used one or saw one? I liked the reglar super scanner and owned one until the wind blew it down. I wonder how much better the 4 element SS was?